Conjugal Partnerships; Effect of the spouses signing as surety

ALFREDO CHING and ENCARNACION CHING vs. COURT OF APPEALS

[G.R. No. 124642. Feb!a" 2#$ 2%%4.&
FACTS'
The Philippine Blooming Mills Company, Inc. (PBMCI) otaine! a loan of P",###,### from the $llie!
Ban%ing Corporation ($BC). $s an a!!e! security for the sai! loan, $lfre!o Ching, together &ith Emilio
Ta'e!o an! Chung (iat )ua, e*ecute! a continuing guaranty &ith the $BC in!ing themsel+es to jointly
an! se+erally guarantee the payment of all the PBMCI oligations o&ing to the $BC. The PBMCI
!efaulte! in the payment of all its loans. )ence, the $BC file! a complaint for sum of money &ith prayer
for a &rit of preliminary attachment. Citing as one of the groun!s for the &rit &as the frau! !efen!ants
employe! in incurring the oligations y representing themsel+es as ha+ing the financial capacity to pay
the loan &hen in fact they !i! not ha+e such capacity.
In the meantime, on ,uly -., /"01, the !eputy sheriff of the trial court le+ie! on attachment the
/##,### common shares of Citycorp stoc%s in the name of $lfre!o Ching. 2n 3o+emer /., /""1,
Encarnacion T. Ching, assiste! y her husan! $lfre!o Ching, file! a Motion to 4et $si!e the le+y on
attachment. 4he allege! inter alia that the /##,### shares of stoc%s le+ie! on y the sheriff &ere ac5uire!
y her an! her husan! !uring their marriage out of conjugal fun!s after the Citycorp In+estment
Philippines &as estalishe! in /"67. 4he, li%e&ise, allege! that eing the &ife of $lfre!o Ching, she &as
a thir!8party claimant entitle! to file a motion for the release of the properties. 4he attache! there&ith a
copy of her marriage contract &ith $lfre!o Ching.
ISSUES'
/. 9o the /##,### shares of stoc% in the name of $lfre!o Ching elong to the conjugal partnership:
-. Is the conjugal partnership liale for the payment of the liaility:
HELD'
/. ;E4. $rticle /.# of the 3e& Ci+il Co!e pro+i!es that all the properties ac5uire! !uring the marriage
are presume! to elong to the conjugal partnership; unless it e pro+e! that it pertains e*clusi+ely to the
husan!, or to the &ife. $s long as the properties &ere ac5uire! y the parties !uring the marriage, they
are presume! to e conjugal in nature. In fact, e+en &hen the manner in &hich the properties &ere
ac5uire! !oes not appear, the presumption &ill still apply, an! the properties &ill still e consi!ere!
conjugal.
In this case, the e+i!ence a!!uce! y the petitioners in the <TC is that the /##,### shares of stoc%s in the
Citycorp In+estment Philippines &ere issue! to an! registere! in its corporate oo%s in the name of the
petitioner8husan! &hen the sai! corporation &as incorporate! on May /7, /"6". This &as !one !uring
the susistence of the marriage of the petitioner8spouses. The shares of stoc%s are, thus, presume! to e
the conjugal partnership property of the petitioners. The pri+ate respon!ent faile! to a!!uce e+i!ence that
the petitioner8husan! ac5uire! the stoc%s &ith his e*clusi+e money. The areface! fact that the shares of
stoc%s &ere registere! in the corporate oo%s of Citycorp In+estment Philippines solely in the name of the
petitioner8husan! !oes not constitute proof that the petitioner8husan!, not the conjugal partnership,
o&ne! the same.
-. 32. =or the conjugal partnership to e liale for a liaility that shoul! appertain to the
husan! alone, there must e a sho&ing that some a!+antages accrue! to the spouses. Certainly, to ma%e a
conjugal partnership responsile for a liaility that shoul! appertain alone to one of the spouses is to
frustrate the ojecti+e of the 3e& Ci+il Co!e to sho& the utmost concern for the soli!arity an! &ell eing
of the family as a unit. The husan!, therefore, is !enie! the po&er to assume unnecessary an!
un&arrante! ris%s to the financial staility of the conjugal partnership.
In this case, the pri+ate respon!ent faile! to pro+e that the conjugal partnership of the petitioners &as
enefite! y the petitioner8husan!>s act of e*ecuting a continuing guaranty an! suretyship agreement
&ith the pri+ate respon!ent for an! in ehalf of PBMCI. The contract of loan &as et&een the pri+ate
respon!ent an! the PBMCI, solely for the enefit of the latter. 3o presumption can e inferre! from the
fact that &hen the petitioner8husan! entere! into an accommo!ation agreement or a contract of surety,
the conjugal partnership &oul! therey e enefite!. The pri+ate respon!ent &as ur!ene! to estalish
that such enefit re!oun!e! to the conjugal partnership.